02/9 -

FREEPORT PROJECT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
FREEPORT TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2006
6:30P.M.

PRESENT: David Marstaller (Chairperson), Erik Anderson, Jason Donahue, Cliff Goodall, James Gorman, Dale Whitmore, and Donna Larson (Town Planner). John Zink was excused.

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Marstaller called the meeting to order at 6:32p.m.

ITEM I: Approval of the minutes from the December 14, 2005 Project Review Board meeting.
Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Anderson moved to waive the reading of the minutes from the December 14, 2005 Project Review Board meeting and to accept them as printed. Vote: 5 Ayes / 0 Nays / 1 Abstention (Gorman)

ITEM II: Informational Exchange
Ms. Larson noted that the Board’s workshop with the Town Council is coming up on January 24 and an agenda needs to be submitted. The Board agreed that the agenda should include discussion of charging developers for road repairs to cover the cost of damages. Ms. Larson added that there was some discussion with the Council about charging a fee to all people building a new home since 75% of new homes being built are not within a subdivision. The Board also agreed to add to the agenda a discussion of upcoming amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance and review a summary of approved projects.

Ms. Larson noted that the Planning Board would be finalizing the draft language for the new Mixed Use District and there would be a public hearing on February 1st. The Board is looking for feedback from the public.

Mr. Whitmore asked about the Townwide Comprehensive Transportation and if any review of the report was scheduled. Ms. Larson stated that she does have a final version of the plan and the Planning Board does not have it on their schedule to discuss as of yet, as they are currently working on many other items.

ITEM III: Site Plan Amendment
Royal River Natural Foods – US Route One
The applicant is seeking approval to add a 1,360s.f. addition to the rear of the existing building. The new area will be used as warehouse space. Tax Assessor Map 23, Lot 63. Ruth Simons, Royal River Natural Foods, applicant; Mike Doten, Doten’s Construction, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that the addition will incorporate the use of the existing loading dock. No parking will be displaced by the addition which will be used as warehouse space. The plan shows two additional parking spaces being added to the rear of the building, for a total of six spaces behind the building. This complies with the parking standard of the ordinance. There are two above-ground LP fuel tanks which will be relocated to the side of the building. The roof will be sided in asphalt shingles and T-111 siding will be used. An egress door and a garage door (for deliveries) will be on the back side of the addition. One wall-mounted lighting fixture is proposed for the rear of the building and will be full cut-off.

Mr. Marstaller asked if the addition would only be seen from the rear. Mr. Mike Doten, representative, stated that was correct. Mr. Donahue asked about the visibility of the LP gas tanks from the abutting property. Mr. Doten explained that they would not really be visible due to a gully between the two properties. Mr. Whitmore asked about runoff. Mr. Doten stated that there are existing catch basins on-site and the run off will follow the same pattern as it does now. Mr. Donahue asked about flashing on the shed roof. Mr. Doten stated that it is noted on the plan as pitched flashing.

There was no public comment.

Proposed Findings of Fact: (Section 602.F. of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance)
a. Preservation of Landscape.
The addition will be located to the rear of the existing structure and will incorporate and existing loading dock. The addition will not be visible from the front side of the building.

b. Relation of Proposed Buildings to the Environment.
The addition will be located to the rear of the existing structure. No other changes to the layout of the site are proposed.

c. Vehicular Access.
Vehicular access to the site will not change.

d. Parking and Circulation.
Two additional parking spaces will be added to the rear of the building which complies with the parking requirement of the Freeport Zoning Ordinance for the use of warehouse/storage space.

e. Surface Water Drainage.
The area of the addition is currently paved, and therefore there is not an overall net increase in the amount of impervious surface. There is an existing detention area located to the rear of the site.

f. Utilities.
Utilities are existing.

g. Advertising Features.
No new signs are proposed.

h. Special Features.
There are no special features associated with this addition.

i. Exterior Lighting.
A wall-mounted, full cut-off fixture will be installed on the rear of the building.
j. Emergency Vehicle Access.
All public safety department heads have reviewed the plans.

k. Landscaping.
No new landscaping is proposed.

l. Environmental Consideration. A site plan shall not be approved unless it meets the following criteria:
This project is not within a shoreland zone. No new historic or archeological resources have been identified on-site.

Conclusion: Based on these facts the Board finds that this project meets the criteria and standards of Section 602 Site Plan Review.

Mr. Gorman / Mr. Whitmore moved to order that the Freeport Project Review Board approve the printed Findings of Fact and Site Plan Amendment for Ruth Simons and Royal River Natural Foods, plans dated December 10, 2005, with the following conditions of approval:
1. This approval incorporates by reference all supporting plans that amend the previously approved plans submitted by the applicant and his/her representatives at Project Review Board meetings and hearings on the subject application to the extent that they are not in conflict with other stated conditions.
2. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant obtain a building permit from the Freeport Codes Department.
Vote: 6 Ayes / 0 Nays

Mr. Goodall recused himself and stepped down and joined the public.

ITEM IV: Subdivision
Kelsey Brook Subdivision – Final Approval
The applicant is proposing a 15-lot open space subdivision on 62.03 acres on Litchfield road. Approximately 42.46 acres will be preserved as open space. A new road off Litchfield Road is proposed. This parcel is in the RR-I Zoning District. Tax Assessor Map 19, Lot 65. Litchfield Property Inc., applicant; Kent Associates, representative.

Ms. Larson explained that since the last meeting, all legal documents including the “Declaration of Protective Covenants, Reservations, Restrictions, and Easements of Kelsey Brook,” Bylaws, and “Forested Buffer, Limited Disturbance” have been reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney.

In addition, the Town Engineer has reviewed and approved the Drainage and Erosion Control and the Stormwater Management Plans. A suggested condition of approval is that the applicant enters into a Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Freeport to be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds. The subdivision plan shows stormwater buffering towards the front of the lots which is required under the new DEP Stormwater Regulations. The applicant has prepared a document titled “Forested Buffer, Limited Disturbance” which outlines restrictions on cutting and development in these buffers. It is recommended that this document also be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds prior to construction.

At the last meeting the Board discussed the issue of requiring the applicant to contribute $19,950.00 to cover the cost of damages by construction trucks to Litchfield Road, to meet the traffic conditions standard. The funds would cover the cost of a pavement shim and overlay and some gravel shoulder-work between the subdivision and Flying Point Road. The Town has also agreed that it will work with the State to improve the grade and site distance on Flying Point Road. The applicant stated at the last meeting that he wanted more time to investigate alternatives and has still not agreed to pay this sum. The applicant had prepared an outline for the Board explaining why he thinks that he should not have to contribute these funds. This item will need to be resolved tonight and if the Board determines that the applicant must contribute funds to road improvements, a condition of approval should be added.

The recording plan meets the requirements of the ordinance. The space standards required by the Town of Freeport are noted on the plan. Building envelopes will be shown on a separate plan, since they are more stringent than the Town standards and the town will have no authority in enforcing the more stringent standards as set be the developer.

The applicant will construct the project in two phases; Phase I is lots 1-8 and Phase II is lots 9-15. The condition of approval pertaining to the performance guarantee, the administrative fee, and the inspection account has been worded to cover each phase of the project separately.

Mr. Andy LeMaistre, applicant, noted that he had submitted a handout to the Board summarizing other approved subdivisions in town and the details regarding required road improvements. He stated that the Subdivision Ordinance does not clearly state what will be required for road improvements and he is not sure that requiring improvements is the intent of the Ordinance. It bothers him that some developers are charged for improvements while others are not, in part because development is a competitive business. He noted that the memo written by the Town Engineer states that the Board “should consider” a fee to cover road damages.

Mr. Marstaller stated that in recent history, developers have been charged for road upgrades if the development was on a Town maintained road. In cases where a developer was not charged, it was because it was on a State road.

Mr. Marstaller noted that Fogg Point Road was rebuilt and relocated. Ms. Larson stated that the submission for that development was submitted with road improvements as part of the project. She noted that the developer had to buy land, reconstruct the road, and get approval from the Town Council for the road improvements/relocation. This has been the only case where the improvements were proposed as part of a submission.

Mr. LeMaistre noted that the developer of Fogg Point was not required to make improvements to Staples Point Road. Mr. Marstaller stated that the Board usually looks at improvements made within a certain distance of a development. Mr. Whitmore noted that the developer of the Mill Stream Development was required to videotape the road prior to construction and ended up paying a fee for road improvements to cover damages, after construction. Ms. Larson added that the developer paid $15,000.00. Mr. Marstaller noted that the problem with this approach is that it leads to an argument after development about which trucks caused damage. It was noted that the new proposed language for the Subdivision Ordinance will include specific language pertaining to road improvements.

Mr. LeMaistre noted that the Town Engineer stated that the road is currently in good condition. Mr. Marstaller stated that the condition needs to be maintained. Mr. LeMaistre summarized past residential development in the neighborhood noting that Litchfield Road still remains in good condition. He disagrees with the Town Engineer about this road not being able to withstand heavy construction vehicles.

Mr. LeMaistre stated that he has paid property taxes in Freeport for 30 years and will pay more taxes over the next five years. He feels that the fee requested could be used better elsewhere. This is a good project which has been designed to have little impact on the land. He asked the Board to consider not imposing this kind of fee.

Mr. Whitmore stated that the Board is looking to protect the applicant in case damages occur and this is like an insurance policy for the developer. Mr. LeMaistre stated that if this were the case, then other developers would have asked to pay the fee. If the ordinance had clearly stated that a fee would have been required to cover damages, the he may have looked at doing the development another way. Mr. Marstaller stated that the applicant did not just become aware of the fee. Mr. LeMaistre stated that he found out after conceptual approval when he asked about other fees. Mr. Marstaller stated that the Board is in a transition phase as to the way that they charge fees. Ms. Larson noted that this has been done since the new ordinance in 2002.

Mr. Marstaller asked the Board for feedback on requiring the applicant to make a payment towards covering the cost of road improvements. Mr. Gorman stated that the Board is in a transition phase and he does not disagree with the fee, however the ordinance is not clear. Mr. Donahue stated that this project is different from past projects on Litchfield Road because this project has to meet the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. He noted that the applicant has received a waiver to allow a reduced road width which would save some money. A nice road leading to the development will also help with the appeal of the development. Mr. LeMaistre stated that he is happy to come up with something and is willing to work with the Board.

Ms. Larson noted that in the past the Board has not required that the fee be paid up front and could allow for the sale of a few lots before the developer is required to pay. The payment could be made in two parts with the second portion being paid prior to the start of Phase II.

Mr. Marstaller asked if Litchfield Road was on the paving schedule. Ms. Larson stated that it is not and that there is no way to keep up with all of the paving in different areas due to the increased development in Town and the decrease in funds. Mr. Marstaller asked about the DOT project on Flying Point Road. Ms. Larson stated that the project is still planed and at that time the Town will be making improvements to the intersection, noting that the developer has not been asked to contribute to the cost of improving the intersection.

Mr. LeMaistre summarized some of the payments required for other projects noting that he would agree to pay $7,500.00 towards road improvements, which is $500.00 per lot.

Mr. Anderson thanked the applicant for developing a good project. He suggested that the Board look at a cost per lot and then break that number up into two payments and suggested a payment of $15,000.00. Ms. Larson stated that the amount was determined by looking at the number of lots and distance of the road and due to the cost of oil, the cost of completing the work will actually be higher. Mr. Gorman stated that the formula makes sense and since it could be paid in phases, he has no problem with the payment of $19,950.00. He added that all developers should have to pay to cover the cost of road damages since development does impact the road and that the issue is not a tax issue. He agreed that the Board needs to be consistent in what developers are paying.

Mr. Marstaller clarified that there were two proposals; one to have the developer pay $15,000.00 and the other for the developer to pay $19,950.00. Mr. Donahue asked what the cost would cover. Ms. Larson stated that it costs the Town less to do the work than it would for a private individual and the cost would cover a shim and overlay and not include any grinding. Shoulder work would be done as needed. Mr. LeMaistre stated that he would agree to pay a fee of $12,500.00; half of each of the cost of road improvements and intersection improvements.

Mr. Marstaller offered to recuse himself from further discussion as he was the developer of a recent subdivision and was required to pay a fee. Mr. Donahue disclosed that the applicant is the landlord for the building that the company he works for is located in. The Board agreed that Mr. Donahue could stay as he did not have a direct conflict. The Board voted on whether Mr. Marstaller needed to recuse himself. Vote: 2 Ayes (Anderson and Donahue) / 2 Nays (Whitmore and Gorman). Based upon a tie vote, Mr. Marstaller recused himself and stepped down and joined the public.

Mr. Gorman took over as Chair of the meeting. He took a poll of the four remaining Board members as to whether the applicant should be required to pay a fee of $15,000.00 or $19,950.00, as all members agreed that a payment was necessary to cover the cost of any road damages. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Donahue agreed that the applicant should pay $15,000.00, while Mr. Whitmore and Mr. Gorman agreed that the applicant should pay the $19,950.00. The Board members discussed the topic and could not come to an agreement on a number and could therefore not make a positive finding for traffic, as required as part of the approval process. Ms. Larson clarified that if the Board voted on the application and the vote was a tie, then the application would not be approved. She explained that if a application was not approved, there is an appeals process to the Board of Appeals who would have the authority to review the record and determine if the Board followed the correct process. The next appeal would then be to Superior Court.

The applicant had stated that there may be another access alternative that he could further investigate. The Board decided that they should maybe table the item to allow the applicant to present additional information and until the remaining Board member was present.

Mr. Goodall noted concern as to whether or not Mr. Zink would be able to vote on the items at the next meeting since he had missed the public hearing. Ms. Larson explained that the Town Attorney has stated that as long as the excused Board member reviews the tapes and record, they could participate in the voting process.

Mr. LeMaistre stated that he would like to resolve the issue and he feels that the Board is being unreasonable when asking him to pay, when not all other developers have been asked to do the same. He stated that $20,000.00 is a lot of money when history, this is not the way that road repairs have been addresses. He is disappointed.

Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Donahue moved to ordered that the Freeport Project Review Board table the review of the Kelsey Brook Subdivision until the next meeting. Vote: 4 Ayes / 0 Nays (Goodall and Marstaller recused).

Mr. Goodall and Mr. Marstaller rejoined the Board.

ITEM V: Discussion
Discussion of proposed amendments to the Freeport Zoning Ordinance pertaining to subdivisions.

Ms. Larson explained that she had given the Board a revised version of the handout with the proposed amendments to the Freeport Zoning Ordinance pertaining to subdivisions (document dated August 2005, as revised 10/11/05). She went through page by page and reviewed the proposed amendments.

Mr. Marstaller asked about ownership options for open space in subdivisions. He suggested that the original intent of the ordinance was to allow a farm which was part of the open space to continue farming and suggested that this be included. He also suggested that a provision be added that states that public access may be required in the open space. Mr. Donahue suggested that if there would be public trails required in a development, then the issue of parking would also need to be addressed.

Mr. Whitmore asked if motor sports were prohibited in open space. Ms. Larson stated no because of snowmobiles and an extensive existing trail system.

Mr. Goodall suggested a change to the proposed amendment under Section 504A.3, so the last sentence would read as follows: “The Project Review Board shall further be authorized to require access to the owners of lots in a subdivision or public access on some or all of the required open space.” Ms. Larson noted that there is a similar requirement for Village Open Space Subdivisions.

Ms. Larson stated that these amendments along with the amendments to the Freeport Subdivision Ordinance, as discussed at the last meeting would go to the Planning Board for review. The Project Review Board will also discuss these changes briefly with the Council at the workshop on January 24.

Mr. Whitmore noted how much the cost of liquid asphalt has increased within the past year. Mr. Goodall stated that the Board has been requiring developers to pay money for road repairs a lot longer than as noted by the applicant tonight. Ms. Larson noted that she would look further into the issue of an excused member voting on an item. Mr. Goodall suggested that she reference a legal case from Presque Isle. Ms. Larson noted that the applicant for Kelsey Brook would have more details at the next meeting on the possibility of a second road.

ITEM VI: Persons wishing to address the Board on non-agenda items.
None.

ITEM VII: Adjournment.
Mr. Whitmore / Mr. Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00p.m. Approved unanimously.

Recorded by Caroline Crean Pelletier